### SUPERFUND FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT HYDE PARK LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE 

### NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK

U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency Region II New York, New York August 2012TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION
... .... .... .... .... .. ... ...... .... ..... .. ........... ..... ...... ........... ........................................... 1 II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS
.. .... ........ ........... .. ... .. .............. ........... ............................. 1 Site Location and Description
...... ... ........ ... .... ...... .. .. ... ....................... .. .... ... ..... ............. ....... ........... 1 Site Background
..... ......... ................ .. ............................ ... ............ .... ....................... ..... ... .. ....... ....... 

### 1 Remedy Selection
..... ....... ..... .. .. ..... ........... .. ............................................................. ....... ... ... ....... ... .3 Remedial Construction Activities
... ...................... .. .. ........... .......................... ... .. .. ........ ...................3 Institutional Controls
......... .... ........... ... ... ............... ...... .. ..... ....... ........................................... .... ...... 8 Pre-final and Final Inspection
......................................... ...... ... ........... ............. .. ..... .... ................. 12 Explanation ofSignificant Differences
.... ....................... ... ....... .... .... ..... ... ................................... 12 Community Involvement Activities
........................ .....; .... .. ....... ....... ..... ......... .......... ................... . 12 

### III. MONITORING RESULTS
.. .. ................................ .... ...... .... ................................................ .. 13 IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
.. .... ... .... ...... .. ..... ..................... ...... 18 V. DEMONSTRATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL.
... ................. 18 VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
.................. .. .. ....... .. ... ..... .. ................ .. .. ........ .. ..... ....... .. ........... ........ 18 VII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA
... ........................ ..... .. ............. ................ .......... ... .. .. ......... 19 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
........... ..................................... ............................ ........... ........................ ......... ..................20I. INTRODUCTION SUPERFUND FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT Hyde Park Landfill Superfund Site Niagara County, New York

This Final Close-Out Report documents that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that all appropriate response actions for the Hyde Park Landfill Superfund Site (Site) have been completed in accordance with the Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P, January 2000). In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980) (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), responsible parties and others have implemented all appropriate response actions selected in the 1986 Enforcement Decision Document and the 2012 Explanation of Significant Differences.
II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Site Location and Description The Hyde Park Landfill Site (Site), approximately 15 acres in area, is located northwest ofthe City of Niagara Falls in the northwest corner of the Town of Niagara. The neighborhood surrounding the Site is mixed industrial and residential. The Niagara River, an international water body, is located 2000 feet northwest of the Site in the Niagara Gorge which descends approximately 350 feet below the surface of the landfill. A Site location map is presented as Figure 1 and a Site plan is presented as Figure 2. Background Hooker Chemical and Plastic Corporation, now Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), disposed of approximately 80,000 tons of chemical wastes at the Hyde Park Landfill from 1953 to 1975, primarily chlorobenzenes
. Trichlorophenol (TCP) still bottoms were disposed of at the Site and approximately 0.7

- 1.6 tons of dioxin (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD) are believed to have been associated with these TCP wastes. The geology underlying the Site is glacial overburden overlying Lockport Dolomite, a fractured rock. The overburden is relatively impermeable and approximately 0 to 30 feet thick. Bloody Run Creek is a drainage channel that flows from the northwest corner of the landfill directly north, into storm sewers discharging to the Niagara Gorge and Niagara River. The bedrock is composed ofvarious layers: beginning with the Lockport Dolomite, a fractured Karst formation (approximately 100 feet thick); followed by the Rochester Shale (60 feet thick); the IrondequoitlReynales Limestone Formation (Intermediate Formation); and, ending with the Queenston Shale (Deeper Formation).
-1-The groundwater in the overburden moves toward the northwest and strongly downward into the bedrock. The groundwater in the bedrock moves downward and laterally, primarily in the northwest direction toward the Gorge Face, which acts as a natural drain. Some of the groundwater emerges from the bedrock at the Gorge Face in the form seeps which flow into the Niagara River. Chemicals migrate from the landfill in two phases: (1) chemicals dissolved in the groundwater called aqueous phase liquids or "APL" and (2) a denser than water phase like a viscous sludge in appearance which migrates under the influence of gravity called non-aqueous phase liquid or "NAPL". APL and NAPL migrate from the landfill, creating two separate contamination plumes in the overburden and the bedrock. The Bloody Run drainage area was contaminated as a result of infiltration of surface runoffwhile the landfill was still operating, and not from the movement of groundwater from the landfill. EPA filed a lawsuit in 1979 under the authority of the Clean Water Act to require 

## acc to remediate the Site. EPA, NY State and 

## acc filed a Settlement Agreement in January 1981 which the Court approved in April 1982. The Settlement Agreement set forth the scope of the investigation 

## acc was to perform in order to characterize the nature and areal and vertical extent of the APL and NAPL plumes in both the overburden and the bedrock. 

## acc has been implementing the Settlement Agreement under government oversight since 1982
. The Aquifer Survey (the equivalent of a remedial investigation) was conducted by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA). The Aquifer Survey required that wells be installed along vectors emanating from the landfill and that samples be taken from these plume definition wells to describe the migration of indicator or marker chemicals from the landfill. The compounds identified below were defined as marker chemicals in the Settlement Agreement along with action levels in terms of concentration. If any of the marker compounds exceeded the action levels specified in the Settlement Agreement, then that well was considered to be within the extent of the aqueous phase plume and another well further out along that vector would be drilled until none of the marker compounds showed levels in excess ofthe action level in any water bearing zone. In this way, the extent of the aqueous phase plume could be determined
. As part of the Aquifer Survey, 

## acc sampled and analyzed groundwater monitoring wells in the bedrock and overburden at and surrounding the Site for conductivity, pH, chloride and total organic carbon, as well as the following marker compounds: total organic halogen, phenol, monochlorobenzene, monochlorotoluenes, trichlorobenzenes, tetrachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, monochlorobenzotrifluorides, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and, hexachlorocyclohexane
. In addition, 

## acc sampled sediments in the Bloody Run and the Niagara Gorge for the following parameters : monochlootoluenes, monochIorobenzene, 2, 4, 5- trichlorophenol, and, hexaclorobenzene. 

## acc completed the Aquifer Survey in 1983. The results ofthe Aquifer Survey were used to determine the extent ofthe APL and NAPL plumes in both the overburden and the bedrock. In 1986, after extensive negotiations, EPA, New York State and 

## acc agreed on the Requisite Remedial Technology (RRT) Stipulation approved by the Buffalo, New York, District Court, which decreed the remedies for the cleanup ofthe Site
. -2-Remedy Selection EPA issued an Enforcement Decision Document (EDD

- the equivalent ofwhat today is called a Record ofDecision) in November 1985 selecting the following remedial actions:

• Source Control (prototype extraction wells); • Containment and collection of APL (Aqueous Phase Liquid) and NAPL (Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid) in the overburden of the aquifer; Containment and collection of APL and NAPL in the bedrock; • Treatment ofcollected APL and NAPL; • Community Monitoring Program (peripheral monitoring wells for early detection of migration ofSite chemicals) ; • Intermediate and Deep Formations Study (monitoring wells); • Industrial Protection Program (remediation ofsumps and sealing ofmanholes) ; • Perimeter Capping (clay cap around perimeter oflandfill); • Gorge Face Seeps Remediation; • 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Bioaccumulation Study in Lake Ontario ; • Bloody Run Excavation or Capping; and, • Final Capping and Site Closure. The primary objective of the remedy selected in the EDD is to prevent the migration of contaminants from the Site through collection and treatment ofthe affected media
. Remedial Construction Activities OCC has been implementing the requirements of the EDD and Requisite Remedial Technology (RRT) Stipulation since 1986. OCC utilizes CRA as its contractor. CRA conducted the remedial design in a phased approach from 1986 through 2002
. CRA would install several extraction wells, their associated infrastructure, and monitoring wells. These wells were pump tested and operated. Groundwater elevations were taken to determine if the wells supplied sufficient capture for Site-related contaminants. If sufficient capture was not attained, additional extraction wells, their associated infrastructure, and monitoring wells would be installed until OCC, EPA and New York State determined that capture had been achieved. Since the remedy was designed and installed in a phased approach, there is notjust one remedial design document, but a series ofremedial design documents for each aspect ofthe remedy. All design documents were reviewed and approved by EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
. CRA has also conducted the remedial action on behalf of OCC under the oversight of EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH.

-3-Source Control The purpose ofthe source control program is to reduce the contamination migrating downward from the landfill by removing mobile NAPL remaining in the landfill. The source control remedial program, as described in the RRT Stipulation, consists of a prototype system ofup to six 36-inch diameter wells installed in the overburden inside the landfill. Figure 3 presents the locations ofthe source control wells
. As required by the RRT, OCC installed two 36-inch extraction wells in the landfill in 1990. OCC performed pump tests on these wells and also investigated potential NAPL source areas within the landfill through 1993
. However, the large-diameter source-control wells did not collect as much NAPL as was expected. The source control system was redesigned using the extraction well design OCC had successfully utilized at its Durez facility in Niagara Falls. OCC installed four 2-inch source control wells in the landfill with two-phase flow pumps to facilitate the pumping of NAPL. Nine monitoring wells were also installed in the landfill. One sourcecontrol well has since been converted to a monitoring well because of insufficient NAPL collection. NAPL extracted by source control wells flows into a decanter at the on-site Storage and Treatment Facility. The total recovered NAPL volume is measured monthly and the potential amount of NAPL contributed by each well is estimated annually by OCC. The source control wells are currently pumped only once per month because of insufficient NAPL volume. The source control wells were designed and installed by OCC and CRA under the oversight ofEPA and NYSDEC. TAMS Consultants (now Earthtech) performed oversight for EPA. Gerry Pietrezek, a NYSDEC Region 9 hydrogeologist, routinely conducted oversight. Matt Forcucci, NYSDOH Region 9, conducted oversight for NYSDOH
. OCC and CRA issued the Source Control Assessment Report in September 1993. OCC reports the amount ofNAPL removed by the source control well in the Hyde ParkRRTProgram AnnualMonitoring Report. Overburden - APL and NAPL Plume Containment System The goal of the remedy selected for the overburden and stated in the RR T Stipulation, is to contain the lateral migration of the NAPL plume and contain the APL plume, to the extent practicable. The remedy was implemented by construction ofthe Overburden Barrier Collection System (OBCS), a drain around the entire landfill to contain and collect contaminated groundwater. The OBCS was installed in 1991. Figure 4 presents the location of the OBCS. Eight well pairs were installed beyond the alignment of an existing drain around the landfill. One well from each pair is inside the APL plume limits and one well from each pair is outside the APL plume. The inner wells are pumped to create an inward hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic stabilization was deemed to have occurred in 1994, following one year ofcontinuous dewatering ofthe OBCS (i
.e., no accumulation ofwater in the wet wells)
.

-4-The OBCS was designed and installed by CRA under the oversight of EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The OBCS remedial design document, Plans andSpecificationsfor the Overburden Barrier Collection System, was issued by OCC and CRA and approved by EPA and NYSDEC in October 1994
. OCC reports the results ofthe overburden monitoring in the Hyde Park RRT Program Quarterly Monitoring Report and the Hyde Park RRT Program Annual Monitoring Report. Bedrock NAPL Plume Containment System The NAPL Plume Containment System was designed to create an inward hydraulic gradient in the bedrock aquifer surrounding the landfill in order to capture groundwater contaminated by Site chemicals. The system was designed and installed in a phased approach in order to achieve proper placement ofthe extraction wells. The first set ofwells were installed, pump tested and connected by force mains to the on-site treatment facility. The capture zones ofthe wells were evaluated, and based on the results of this evaluation, additional wells were installed in areas where capture was not being attained. The remedial design document, Plans, Specifications and Protocols, Well Installation Program, was issued by OCC and CRA and approved by EPA and NYSDEC in October 1989. Phase I, consisting of six purge wells, was installed for OCC by CRA in 1990 under the oversight ofEPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. Two well nests ofthree wells each were installed in the upper, middle and lower units of bedrock. OCC conducted pump tests on individual and multiple wells throughout 1991. 

## acc submitted to EPA and New York State a Phase I pump test report in February 1993
. EPA and New York State approved OCc's recommendation for the location of Phase II purge and recirculation wells and required OCC to install two additional wells. The installation ofthe Phase II wells was completed in 1993
. OCC conducted pump tests on the Phase II wells which were completed in 1994. The results ofthese pump tests indicated that further hydraulic control was necessary. Additional wells were installed and a network of eleven bedrock purge wells was operational in 1997. Figure 5 presents the locations of the bedrock purge wells. Bedrock APL Plume Containment System The APL Plume Containment System, consisting of three purge wells installed at the Niagara Gorge Face, was designed to collect a significant portion (60-88%) of the contaminated groundwater outside the NAPL plume (as required by the RRT). These wells were designed by CRA under the oversight ofEPA and NYSDEC and installed in 1994. Leachate Storage and Treatment Facility APL is treated on-site at the Leachate Storage and Treatment Facility constructed by OCC which began operating in April 1990
. The APLINAPL mixture is pumped from the wells through force mains into a decant tank. The NAPL, denser than water, settles to the bottom. APL is taken off the top of the decanter and pumped into the storage tanks. The APL first passes through sacrificial activated carbon beds (which cannot be recycled because of the dioxin and are disposed ofoff-site). The APL is then treated in an activated carbon system.

-5-oee and eRA designed and installed the Leachate Treatment Facility in 1989 to process 70 gallons per minute (gpm) of influent. The facility began operating in April 1990. The 70 gpm treatment capacity proved insufficient as excess water (much ofit clean) was entering the OBCS from the northwest. In 1997, a clay barrier wall was installed to the north and west ofthe OBes in an attempt to prevent the migration ofclean groundwater from off-site to the collection system and the Leachate Treatment Facility was upgraded to 110 gpm. In 2001, OCC again increased the treatment capacity to 400 gpm to be able to adequately handle periods oflarge water volume. More than 30,000,000 gallons have been treated to date by the Hyde Park Leachate Treatment Facility. The Leachate Treatment Facility was designed and installed by oee and eRA under the oversight of EPA and NYSDEC. oee operates the facility according to the oee 2002 Hyde Park Collection and Aqueous Phase Leachate (APL) Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Manual. NAPL Treatment Before 1990, NAPL collected at the Site was stored in railroad tank cars because there was no commercial incinerator available to destroy these wastes. The RRT required oee to obtain a permit modification for its Buffalo Avenue Plant incinerator to burn wastes containing dioxins. The five years spent in obtaining the permit modification significantly delayed the remedial schedule for the Site. oee was issued this modification by EPA and NYSDEe in November 1990. This was the first industrial incinerator permitted to bum dioxin. From 1990 until 1996, NAPL was transferred by tanker truck to OCc's Buffalo Avenue Plant in Niagara Falls for incineration
. More than 250,000 gallons ofNAPL were incinerated at the Buffalo Avenue Plant. oce suspended incinerating NAPL at its Buffalo Avenue Plant in 1996. Subsequent to suspending this operation, OCC began transporting NAPL by truck to Laidlaw Environmental Services in Deer Park, Texas for incineration. To date, more than 300,000 gallons of NAPL have been removed from the Site and destroyed by incineration. Landfill Cap The Settlement Agreement required oce to cap the landfill with 36 inches of clay, with a 12- inch vegetative cover. Before a final cap could be placed on the landfill, wastes associated with remedial activities had to be managed. OCC developed the Waste Disposal Plan, which was implemented in 1988. Waste disposal cells lined with clay were constructed on top of the landfill to consolidate wastes resulting from remedial actions and investigations conducted at the Site. Contaminated soils from investigative activities and sediment from the Bloody Run remediation were consolidated in the landfill. The perimeter cap ofthe landfill was completed in 1991, and the entire landfill cap was completed in 1994. The final cap consisted of the following: low-permeability clay; a synthetic membrane; a drainage layer and topsoil seeded with native vegetation for barrier protection: EPA routinely inspects the landfill cap for erosion
. The current condition ofthe cap is excellent. The remedial design document, Project Specificationfor Final Landfill Cap was issued by OCC and CRA in June 1994 and reviewed and approved by EPA and NYSDEC. The landfill cap was designed and installed by CRA under the oversight ofEPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH.
-6-Bloody Run Remediation The Bloody Run received drainage from the landfill prior to the implementation ofany remedial measures . Residents living alongside contracted chloroacne, a skin disease, from exposure to the contaminated water. OCC relocated several families who lived next to this stream during the late 1970s. The Settlement Agreement set forth two possibilities for remedial action at the Bloody Run, sediment excavation or capping. In 1992, EPA performed a risk assessment that determined the excavation of sediments in the Bloody Run would not pose an adverse risk to nearby residents, would be protective ofhuman health, and was the preferred alternative. CRA excavated approximately thirty thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Bloody Run drainage area. The excavated sediment was consolidated with the waste in the landfill which was not yet closed. The excavated area was then backfilled and covered with riprap. A drainage catch basin was installed to replace the sewer outfall. OCC performed the required restoration work which included road and culvert replacement. Areas directly east and west" ofthe Bloody Run were covered with six inches ofloam and six inches oftopsoil and grass seed and mulch were applied
. This work was completed in January 1993. The Bloody Run now flows via a storm sewer which surfaces at the Niagara Gorge
. In May 1994, EPA and New York State approved the Final Construction Report: Bloody Run Excavation andSewer Remediation. The restored area was observed by EPA during annual Site visits to have abundant vegetation. Data collected from monitoring wells located in this area demonstrate that there is no Site-related contamination present. Figure 6 presents the locations ofthe Bloody Run monitoring well locations. Niagara River Gorge Face Remediation Groundwater seeps from the rock at the Niagara Gorge, approximately 2000 feet from the Site. TCDD was detected in one sample from a seep during remedial investigations at 0.2 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA and New York State determined that fisherman and other recreational visitors to the Niagara Gorge should be isolated from the seeps to prevent an exposure pathway to the contaminants. The Niagara Gorge seeps were remediated in 1988, except for the Bloody Run portion, which was remediated in 1994. Access by fisherman and other recreational visitors to the seeps has been prevented by the installation offences and the diversion ofseeps into culverts. The objective of the Niagara Gorge remediation was not to remove any rock, but to remove sediments adhered to the rock. All contaminated sediments were scraped away and placed in a waste disposal cell at the landfill, prior to the installation ofthe final cap. EPA and New York State approved a report prepared by CRA documenting the Niagara Gorge remediation in March 1988. Niagara River Gorge Seep inspections are conducted biannually by 

## acc, CRA, EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. These inspections are documented in the Biannual Gorge Seep Survey prepared by 

## acc and CRA. No issues or recommendations have resulted from the bianuual inspections.

-7-On-Site Lagoon Remediation OCC remediated the on-site lagoons in 1991. NAPL in the lagoons was pumped into the leachate storage facility and the lagoons were closed. NAPL was also pumped into the Leachate Treatment Facility from four railroad tank cars which had been used on-site for several years as storage for NAPL generated from remedial investigations because there was no facility permitted to treat dioxin
. In 1991, the tank cars were placed in the waste disposal cells. Institutional Controls A Declaration ofRestrictive Covenants and Environmental Easement was placed on the deed to the Site property at the County recording office in Niagara County on October 7, 2010. The Grantor (Occidental) grants a permanent restrictive covenant and an environmental easement to the Grantee (Town of Niagara) to provide a right of access over the approximately 21-acre property (the "Property") for purposes ofimplementing, facilitating and monitoring the remedial action
. The covenant /easement also imposes on the Property certain use restrictions that will run with the land for the purpose ofprotecting human health and the environment in the future
. The following restrictions apply to the use ofthe Property, run with the land, and are binding on the Grantor: the Property shall not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the implementation, integrity, or effectiveness ofthe remedial action performed at the Site, including, but not limited to: a) the extraction of on-site groundwater; b) any digging, excavation, extraction ofmaterials, construction, or other activity outside the requirements ofthe remedial action that would disturb the cap placed upon the landfill at the Site; or c) other activity that would disturb or interfere with any portion ofthe remedial action for the Site enumerated in the RRT Stipulation. The Property also may not be used for residential use. However, the Property may be used for commercial or industrial use as long as long-term engineering controls are employed and remain effective
. That is, specifically, the operation of the portion of the response action pertaining to the pumping ofthe extraction wells, the operation ofthe treatment facility, and maintenance ofthe landfill cap. In addition to the Site-specific institutional control, the Niagara County Department of Health imposes restrictions on the drilling and usage of wells at the Site. These restrictions ensure that drinking-water wells are not installed in areas of contaminated groundwater, effectively preventing exposure to Site-related contaminants through ingestion. Summary ofRemedy Operation and Additional Studies Conducted The RRT Stipulation required a groundwater monitoring program for the bedrock aquifer with well locations selected along vectors radiating from the center of the landfill. The monitoring wells are located inside and outside the NAPL Plume. The RRT Stipulation stated that an inward gradient must be established across the NAPL plume boundary. However, implementation of the vector scheme has not proven to be an effective monitoring system. Practical considerations frequently impact the selection of well locations
. Certain vectors are located in nonwater-bearing rock. Other vectors show a flat gradient. To enhance the vector monitoring scheme, with which OCC reports its site cleanup progress, local groundwater contour maps were developed.
-8-

# ace has implemented the bedrock hydraulic monitoring program since 1996. For the purpose ofmonitoring, the bedrock was divided into three separate flows zones: Upper Bedrock, Middle Bedrock and Lower Bedrock. Currently, there are 16 bedrock extraction wells in operation. The monitoring program established by the RRT Stipulation was not able to demonstrate an inward hydraulic gradient ofthe contaminated groundwater. GroundwaterModeling Study 

# ace contracted S. S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (SSPA) to perform a detailed groundwater modeling study of the Site during 2000-2001 to address uncertainties with respect to groundwater flow. The Site is located in a very complex hydrogeologic setting and 

# ace sought to formulate a conceptual model which synthesized data collected from the Site and the regional hydrogeologic setting
. The model was used to evaluate the performance ofthe current bedrock remedial pumping system. Particle tracking was utilized to determine the capture zones ofthe existing bedrock wells. The model indicated that there was a vertical component of flow (i
.e., some of the water from the Upper Bedrock zone was being captured in the Lower Bedrock zone)
. Groundwater model simulations using the flow rate data from the first quarter of 2001 indicate that 52.1 % of the Upper, 90.4% of the Middle, and 98
.8% of the Lower Bedrock zone groundwater are being captured. Installation of Additional Wells in 2001 

# ace used the results ofthe model to select the locations of six additional bedrock purge wells which were installed in 2001. EPA and NYSDEe approved the locations ofthese wells. 

# ace, EPA and NYSDEC evaluated the complex water-level data to determine if an inward hydraulic gradient was being achieved by the current set of eighteen extraction wells. The analysis ofthe water-level data led 

# aee to determine that the system of Upper, Middle and Lower Bedrock monitoring that utilized wells with long screening intervals, which were open over several flow zones, could not measure the groundwater capture at the Site with accuracy. Site Re-Characterization Subsequent to the development of the groundwater model, 

# aee revised the Site conceptual model which provided the basis for the numerical simulation ofthe hydrogeologic system. 

# aee conducted field investigations from 2001 to 2003, including down-borehole geophysics, waterlevel measurements in 113 piezometers
. The analysis of the field data resulted in a revised hydrolgeologic framework consisting ofeleven discrete flow zones separated by aquitards. 

# ace has documented its revised hydrogeologic framework in two documents: Site Characterization Re port: Revised Geologic and Hydrogeologie Characterization (February 2002) and Site Characterization Report: Hydrologic Characterization (February 2003). This report, dated February 2003 , was produced for 

# ace by Services Environmental, Inc.(SEI), SSPA and 

### eRA.

-9-The eleven flow zones replace the Upper, Middle and Lower Bedrock framework formerly used at this Site. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted in the eleven flow zones since late 2002 and OCC now has a post re-characterization data base ofwater-level measurements. After the geology at the Site was re-characterized, OCC produced a new groundwater model which assists in determining if the groundwater remedy provides capture of the contaminated water associated with the Site. Site Characterization Report: Groundwater Flow Model, dated June 2003, was prepared for OCC by SSPA. The results ofthe groundwater model indicate that capture ofcontaminated groundwater is achieved in the bedrock. OCC issued the Site Characterization Report: Remedial Characterization Report (RCR), prepared by SEI, SSPA and CRA in June 2003. The RCR concludes that the Bedrock NAPL Plume Containment System satisfies the performance objectives of the RRT (inward gradient). Although the data for two of the flow zones suggest some uncertainty in the inward gradient, chemical analyses of the groundwater from these two zones indicate that Site-related contaminants are not present. This indicates that no migration of contaminants outside of the containment system is occurring. 

## acc will conduct additional studies to better define the areas ofuncertainty. Lake Ontario 

## TenD Bioaccumulation Study The RRT established APL Plume Flux Action Levels based on EPA's worst-case bioaccumulation assumptions for the following chemicals: TCDD (0.5 grams/year); perchloropentacyc1odecane [Mirex] (0.005 lbs/day); Aroc1or 1248 (0.005 lbs/day); and, chloroform (1.7 lbs/day). These action levels represent concentrations of these contaminants that, if detected entering the river (flux of contaminants to the river) at or above these concentrations, would require OCC to take additional remedial actions (e.g. increased pumping, installing additional wells or other remedial measures) to reduce these contaminant levels. The only parameter detected in 2001 was TCDD. OCC calculated the flux ofTCDD to the Niagara River as 7.06 x 10-5 grams/year, which is several orders ofmagnitude below the Flux Action. EPA Region 2, New York State and OCC designed and implemented a work plan to collect fish and sediment samples from Lake Ontario and analyze them for TCDD. Lab studies were performed by the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota and the University ofMinnesota. The draft Lake Ontario TCDD Bioaccumulation Study was completed in July 1989 and distributed for scientific peer review. The final TCDD Bioaccumulation Study report reflecting the comments of the peer reviewers was released to the public in September 1991. As part of this study, the EPA Large Lakes Research Station in Grosse Ile, Michigan, collaborated with the Manhattan College Department of Environmental Engineering to produce the Lake Ontario TCDD Modeling Report. A mass-balance model was developed based upon models offallout radionuc1ides and PCB contamination ofthe Great Lakes. With the assistance ofa panel ofscientists convened by EPA, the model was refined and reparameterized for TCDD.

-10-

### The predicted steady-state TeDD concentrations for an input comparable to the TeDD APL Plume Flux Action Level of 0.5 grams/year are 0.026 nanograms/year (sorbed sediment concentrations) and 9.5 x 10-5 

### picograms/liter (water column dissolved concentration). The TeDD Study, together with the model, indicated that TeDD was bioaccumulating in the tissues of various species of Lake Ontario fish at a range of rates such that the overall TeDD APL Plume Flux Action Level of 0.5 

### grams/year stipulated by the RRT remains protective. The TeDD Study was performed as a partnership among EPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOH and OCC. The Gradient Corporation, Ecology and Environment, University ofMichigan, EPA Large Lakes Research Station and, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory performed work on the TeDD Study for EPA. Community Monitoring Program 

### The Community Monitoring Wells, a system of wells installed in 1987 throughout the neighborhood, provide early warning of the presence of Hyde Park contaminants in the groundwater. These wells are sampled and analyzed quarterly. The RRT included requirements for OCC to take further remedial action if should contamination be detected in this network of wells
. Industrial Protection Program 

### The Industrial Protection Program, implemented in 1987, established engineering controls to eliminate the exposure ofnearby workers to contaminants present in the NAPL and APL plumes. Sumps and manholes in neighboring industries, including GriefBrothers (located directly downgradient from the landfill), were sealed, eliminating worker exposure to vapors that may migrate into the sump. OCC relocated a sewer at neighboring Tams Ceramics in 1989
. The eollege Heights sewer was remediated in 1990. EPA and NYSDEC approved a report prepared by eRA documenting the College Heights sewer remediation in 1990.
oee has recently purchased the Grief Brothers building. Future access to this facility is now controlled by OCC. Periodic surveys of neighborhood manholes and sumps are performed to ensure the remedies remain intact. Intermediate and Deep Bedrock Formations Study 

### The Intermediate and Deep Formations Study was designed to determine if contaminants from the Site had penetrated the Rochester Shale (aquitard) formation below the Lockport Dolomite. If action levels documented in the RRT are exceeded in the Intermediate Formations, then monitoring wells will be installed in the Deep Formations. In addition, a total flux to the Niagara River is calculated, and if the Flux Action Levels are exceeded, further remedies would be required to reduce the loading to the river. Monitoring wells were installed by OCC and CRA in the intermediate formations in 1990 without detecting the presence of NAPL. Most wells contained insufficient volumes of groundwater for sample collection after purging activities, indicating that the shale is a good
-11-aquitard
. The Monitoring Re port , Intermediate Formations Wells, November 199111992, prepared by OCC and CRA, summarizes the results ofthe investigation
. Most ofthe parameters were not detected above the concentrations ofLower Formation Survey Parameters listed in the RRT Stipulation. However, phenol, total organic halogen, PCB-1248 and conductivity did exceed the survey levels. OCC calculated a flux in the monitoring report which was four to five orders ofmagnitude below the Flux Action Level. OCC was not required to install monitoring wells in the Deep Formations because the Intermediate Formations' investigation indicated that Site contaminants had not migrated through the shale and were not present in the Intermediate Formations. Explanation ofSignificant Differences EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) on May 7, 2012. This ESD has two components. The first component involves an institutional control, which is a nonengineered control to restrict or limit exposure to a hazardous substance. The EDD did not specif y the implementation ofinstitutional controls as a component ofthe selected remedy. The institutional control is in the form ofa "Declaration ofRestrictive Covenants and Environmental Easement" which was placed on the deed to the property on October 7,2010. The second component ofthe ESD included a discussion which clarified that the remedy selected in the EDD, and approved by the federal court, is a containment remedy and not an aquifer restoration remedy intended to restore the aquifer to its best beneficial use (i.e. , a source of drinking water). The goal of the containment remedy for the Site is to prevent the migration of leachate and contaminated groundwater from the Site through capping, groundwater collection, NAPL collection and treatment ofextracted groundwater and NAPL. Figure 9 presents an aerial view ofthe bedrock NAPL zone and the area ofhydraulic containment. Community Involvement Activities EPA maintained a Public Information Office (PIO) in Niagara Falls, New York from 1984 through 200l. Since 2001, EPA has maintained the PIO in Buffalo, New York. Site files are available in the PIO for public review. Many public meetings were held during the RRT negotiations and during the early stages of remedial action. Public meetings were held at Niagara University near the Site. EPA has held numerous public availability sessions at the Niagara Falls PIO where the project manager met with interested members of the public and discussed Site conditions in an informal setting. The PIO maintains a Site mailing list. Periodically, fact sheets and Site updates are mailed to the recipients on this list. Pre-final and Final Inspection On June 24, 2003 , a pre-final inspection was conducted by EPA and NYSDEC
. Based on the results of this inspection, it was determined that the construction for the entire Site was completed and that the implemented remedy was consistent with the EDD and RRT. A Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed in July 2003.
-12-OCC has operated the remedial systems at the Site maintaining hydraulic containment since 2003. Subsequent to the placement ofa Declaration ofRestrictive Covenants and Environmental Easement on the Site in October 2010, a final inspection was conducted by EPA's Remedial Project Manager, Gloria M. Sosa, and OCC's Project Manager, Joseph Branch, on June 8, 2011. During the inspection, the EPA representative did not observe any problems or deviations from the ongoing operation and maintenance activities being implemented at the Site. The current condition ofthe cap is excellent. The fence surrounding the landfill is intact with no breaches. All the wells and associated infrastructure were functioning properly
. Brian Sadowski, NYSDEC Region 9, inspected the Site with Joseph Branch on May 4,2011. III. MONITORING RESULTS The Performance Monitoring Plan, 2006, sets forth the requirements of the groundwater monitoring program. Monitoring consists ofthe Overburden Monitoring Program, the Bedrock Monitoring Program and the Community Monitoring Program. OCC documents that the containment remedy is achieving its performance requirements in the Annual Site Remedial Performance Evaluation Report, which also includes the Quarterly Reports. In order to demonstrate hydraulic containment of the APL and NAPL plumes, OCC must demonstrate that an inward hydraulic gradient across the APL and NAPL plumes in the overburden and the bedrock is maintained, as required by the RRT. Overburden Monitoring Program The Overburden Monitoring Program includes monitoring the source control wells and the OBCS. The overburden monitoring ensures that there is no lateral migration ofNAPL or APL through the overburden. To date, the source control program has not yielded significant amounts of NAPL. Historical records indicate that 80,000 tons ofwastes were landfilled. It is unknown how much NAPL was produced from these wastes. OCC has removed over 300,000 gallons of NAPL during the remedial action. In 2011,262 gallons ofNAPL were removed from the source wells. Due to the decreasing volumes of NAPL conducted in recent years, EPA believes that most of the NAPL that was once present in the overburden in the landfill has either flowed into the bedrock, been captured, or remains in pockets or pools that are not hydraulically connected to the source control wells. In addition, the installation of the final cap on the landfill has eliminated the continued production ofleachate from rainfall, thereby dramatically reducing the hydraulic head and in turn reducing the driving force for the NAPL.

-13-Hydraulic monitoring ofthe OBCS is performed by water-level measurements taken at the eight well pairs. Water-level measurements indicate that an inward gradient is being achieved, thereby capturing the contaminated groundwater associated with the Site. In addition, NAPL has not been observed in any of the overburden monitoring well locations, indicating that the OBCS serves as a barrier to off-site NAPL migration
. The overburden water-level measurements are used to generate an overburden groundwater potentiometric surface map. Figure 10 presents the overburden groundwater potentiometric surface map for the fourth quarter of 2011. Figure 10 shows hydraulic containment in the overburden. These findings are documented in the 2011 Annual Site Remedial Performance Evaluation Report. Bedrock Monitoring Program The Bedrock Monitoring Program includes monitoring the APL Plume Containment System, the NAPL Plume Containment System and the Bloody Run Creek Monitoring Program
. The bedrock APL and NAPL Plume Containment Systems consist of 19 extraction wells that control the lateral and vertical migration of dissolved-phase contaminants and NAPL in the bedrock. The bedrock extraction well average monthly flow rates in 2011 were consistent with historic flow rates at the Site. The water-level elevations in the extraction wells indicate that these wells are operating at the pumping-level target set points. These set points maintain a water-level elevation that ensures that certain flow zones remain unsaturated. Groundwater-level measurements provided in Table 2 present the bedrock groundwater-level measurements for 2011. The bedrock water-level measurements are used to generate bedrock groundwater potentiometric surface maps for each of the nine monitored flow zones. The bedrock groundwater potentiometric surface maps for the nine monitored flow zones for the fourth quarter of2011 are presented as Figures 11-17. The potentiometric maps for each monitored flow zone indicate hydraulic containment in the bedrock. NAPL Plume Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Results Groundwater samples were collected quarterly during 2011 annual sampling event as per the Performance Monitoring Plan and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organic acids, and sulfate
. The parameters in the table below were the only parameters detected above their screening levels
. All of the monitoring wells with exceedances ofthe screening values were located within the hydraulic capture zone. These exceedances are consistent with results from sampling events conducted in 2003, 2006, 2007,2009, and 2010. 2011 Bedrock Monitoring Program Results Site Organic Indicators Well Locations Exceeding SOl Screening Values (SOl) Chlorendic Acid AGW-IM-07, AGW-1M-09, AGW

-IU-06, B2L-l1, DIM09, F2U-02, F2U-04, G6-04, -14-H5-09, J6-07, F2M-09, H2U-02, DlU-05, D2M-09, 06-05 Benzene DIL-ll, DIM-09, E6-09, E6-11, F2L-ll, F6-11, OIL-II, 06-04,06-05,06-11, H2M-09, H5-09, J6-11 1,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane 06-01,06-02,06-04,06-05, H2M-06 Tetrachloroethene 06-01, 06-02, 06-04 Trichloroethene 01U-01 , 06-01 , 06-02, 06-04, 06-05, H2M

-06 Vinyl Chloride 06-01,06-02,06-04,06-05, H2M-06, H2U-02 Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene 06-02,06-04,06-05 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate E6-04, H2M06 Non-Site Organic Indicators Well Locations Exceeding non-SOlScreening Values Benzo(a)pyrene B2L-11 Benzo(b)fluoranthene B2L-ll Chloroform 06-05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene B2L-ll Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene B2L-11 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 06-05 APL Plume Monitoring Oroundwater Sampling Results The APL Plume Flux Monitoring is conducted to ensure that Site-related contaminants are not discharging to the Niagara River Gorge at levels above the APL Flux Levels specified in the RRT. The RR T list of APL Plume Flux Monitoring Parameters was reduced when the Performance Monitoring Plan was approved. For example, chloroform was listed in the RRT, however, chloroform was never detected in Site monitoring above screening levels and was no longer considered a parameter of concern. There also have never been detections above screening levels in the APL Purge Wells (APWs) or the APL Flux Wells (AFWs) of the following parameters listed in the RRT: phenol, benzene, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol. As a result, these parameters were also removed from the monitoring program. The Analytical Parameters for APL Flux Monitoring specified in the Performance Monitoring Plan are: TCDD, PCBs as Arochlor 1248, and, hexachlorocyclohexanes and Mirex (pesticides)
. None ofthe APL plume flux parameters was detected above their respective reporting levels in the 2011 sampling. As a result, OCC was not required to calculate the flux to the Niagara River. Figure 7 shows the locations ofthe APL Flux Monitoring Wells
. The following table presents the results from the most recent composite sampling event from the AFW wells
. APL Flux**Monitorin~** Wells Composite Sampling Parameter 

### I Units I Reporting AFW Composite Level Sample 12/19/11 PCBs , Pentachlorobiphenyl 

### I f.tg/L 11 0.20U Tetrachlorobiphenyl 

### I f.tg/L 11 0
.20U
-15-1 Ilg/L Ilg/L 1 0.098 

### U Total PCBs Ilg/L 

## -- 0.20 

### U Pesticides alpha-BHC Ilg/L 1 0.050 

### U beta-BHC Ilg/L 1 0.050 

### U delta-BHC Ilg/L 1 0
.050 

### U gamma-Chlordane Ilg/L 1 0.050 

### U Mirex Ilg/L 1 Dioxins }0 FD Fe( HY'% i 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin pg/L 500 0.050 

### U Notes: BHC Benzene Hexachloride Ilg/L micrograms per liter pg/L picograms per liter

-- No reporting level established U Non-detect at associated value Bloody Run Creek Monitoring Program The Bloody Run is monitored every 5 years. The most recent sampling event was conducted in 2011. Analyses included VOCs, SVOCs, and organic acids. A review ofthe 2011 Bloody Run sampling event data indicates that one parameter, chlorendic acid, exceeded its screening level of 0.05 mg/L. Chlorendic acid was detected in three wells (BR-2, BR-3, and BR-4) at 0.34 mg/L, 0.18 mg/L, and, 0.27 mg/L respectively. These concentrations ofchlorendic acid do not pose an unacceptable risk. Community Monitoring Program The Community Monitoring Program includes the Gorge Face Program, the APL Flux Monitoring Program and the Residential Community Monitoring Program. Niagara Gorge Face Program The Gorge Face Program includes bianuual inspection ofthe Niagara Gorge. These inspections are documented with photographs and a report issued by OCe. Conditions in the Niagara Gorge have remained stable over the past decade. The 2011 Biennial Gorge Face Seep Survey of seeps and culverts located along accessible pathways along the Niagara Gorge between the New York Power Authority (NYPA) fence on the Lower Access Road and the Garfield Avenue Outfall Sewer was conducted by ConestogaRovers & Associates (CRA), along with representatives from 

## acc, EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The purpose ofthe survey is to monitor the status ofpreviously identified seeps/wet areas and to identify new flowing seeps/wet areas. This was the second biennial survey conducted since August 2006.

-16-A total of 29 seep locations and eight culverts, as well as the Garfield Street Outfall Sewer and the Bloody Run outlet (presented in Figure 19), were visited during the survey and inspected for flow and exposed wet areas. Many ofthe seeps were flowing and their condition was unchanged as compared to the 2009 survey. Several seeps appeared to have dried up. There was heavy vegetation and no standing water in the culverts. The Bloody Run outlet had a steady rapid flow (approximately 30 GPM) and was heavily vegetated. The fence was in place and in good condition
. The seeps are no longer sampled since the analytical results of the previous several decades of surveys reported all non-detect concentrations and no chemical odors were detected during the survey. As a result, no recommendations were identified. The next seep survey will be conducted during the summer of20 13. The APL Flux Monitoring Program ensures that the mass loading of Site-related contaminants to the Niagara River is below the Flux Action Level ofdocumented in the RRT. The loading to the Niagara River has consistently been several orders ofmagnitude below the Flux Action Level. The Residential Community Program ensures residents are not exposed to Site-related groundwater or soil vapors. The residential monitoring wells have a vertical hydraulic gradient and site contaminants have never been detected in these wells. The data collected have demonstrated that the groundwater flow is vertically downward in the nearby community. EPA and New York State review the analytical results from sampling of these wells to ensure the community is being protected
. Figure 8 shows the locations of the Community Monitoring Wells. Summary ofMonitoring Data EPA utilized multiple lines of evidence to determine that site related contamination is being hydraulically contained. These multiple lines ofevidence include:
• The potentiometric surface maps for the eight monitored flow zones; • Groundwater quality data; • Groundwater flow budget and particle tracking analysis using a numerical groundwater flow model; • Vertical hydraulic gradient data; • Historical groundwater quality trends from the NAPL Performance Monitoring Wells; • Groundwater relative age dating based on sulfate concentrations; • Comparison ofthe chemistry ofthe seeps in the Niagara River gorge to the chemistry of the bedrock groundwater. Following all these lines of evidence, EPA concluded that the performance objectives of the remedy were maintained throughout the year. Based upon these results, the EDD remedy selected for the Site is deemed to be effective in protecting human health and the environment. Groundwater monitoring continues to demonstrate that hydraulic containment is being achieved at the Site. The results of the groundwater monitoring are presented in the Site annual reports which document containment.

-17-V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OCC and CRA prepared the Hyde Park Collection andAP L Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) in December 2003, which was approved by EPA and NYSDEC. The O&M Manual was subsequently revised and incorporated into the Performance Monitoring Plan in 2006. The treatment system treats more than fifty million gallons of water each year and is monitored on a daily, weekly and quarterly basis to ensure compliance with the discharge requirements. There are nine locations in the system where water samples are collected to monitor system performance. The carbon beds at the Treatment Facility are routinely changed and regenerated. The sacrificial carbon beds, which cannot be regenerated, must also be changed and disposed. OCC must perform extensive well and pump maintenance, as NAPL often fouls wells and pumps. Annual inspections ofthe monitoring wells are conducted to ensure that the casings and caps are in good condition. VI. DEMONSTRATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL During the remedial investigation, remedial design and remedial action stages of the project, quality assurance and quality control (QAlQC) for sampling and analysis were carried out in accordance with the QAlQC plans and QAlQC reports submitted to and approved by EPA and NYSDEC. The QAlQC plans were in conformance with EPA's QAlQC procedures and protocols. Therefore, EPA has determined that the analytical results are accurate to the degree necessary to assure satisfactory execution ofthe RD/RA consistent with the remedy selected by EPA. Remedial designs were reviewed and approved by EPA and NYSDEC. Oversight ofthe RA construction was provided by TAMS Consultants and NYSDEC by professional geologists and engineers licensed in New York State. The QAlQC program used throughout the RA was rigorous and in conformance with EPA and NYSDEC standards; therefore, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that all analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution ofthe RA, in accordance with the EDD, RRT, RD plans and specifications, as modified by the as-built documentation. VII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW The first**five~year** review for the Site was completed in September 1994, pursuant to OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P. This review, conducted before the remedial action (RA) had been completed and O&M, and monitoring activities had commenced, determined that the remedy as designed would be protective of human health and the environment when fully implemented. The remedial actions conducted by OCC, together with institutional controls had significantly reduced exposure to Site contaminants
.

-18-The second five-year review for the Site was completed in September 2001. This review was also conducted before the RA was completed
. That review concluded that although the RA was not complete, there were no human exposures to Site contaminants either through direct exposure or through drinking-water consumption
. The reduction in exposure to Site contaminants because of groundwater containment, collection and treatment remedies implemented by OCC, together with site-access prevention, were protective ofhuman health. The third five-year review was completed in September 2006. This review, conducted after the RA had been completed, and O&M and monitoring activities had commenced, concluded that the remedy was functioning as intended by the Site' s decision documents and was protective of human health and the environment. The hydraulic containment stipulated in the RRT had been achieved. There were no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks, and none were expected as long as the engineered controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. The fourth five-year review was completed in September 2011. This review also concluded that the remedy at the Site protects human health and the environment. There are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks, and none are expected as long as the engineered controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained
. The next five-year review will be completed by September 2016
. VIII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA This Site meets all the site completion requirements of Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320
.2-22, May 2011)
. Specifically, the implemented remedy achieved the degree ofcleanup specified in the EDD, RRT Amendment and ESD for all pathways ofexposure. The remedy, remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

-19-IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hyde Park Landfill Document Date Enforcement Decision Document 11/85 Stipulation on Requisite Remedial Technology 05/86 Intermediate and Deep Formations Study 09/90 TCDD Bioaccumulation Study 09/91 First Five-Year Review 09/96 Second Five

- Year Review 09/01 Site Characterization Report: Revised Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization 02/02 Site Characterization Report: Hydrologic Characterization 02/03 Site Characterization Report: Groundwater Flow Model 06/03 Site Characterization Report: Remedial Characterization Report 06/03 Superfund Preliminary Close-out Report 07/03 Major Ions Study 11/03 Comprehensive Remedial Characterization Report 09/04 Performance Monitoring Plan 07/06 Third Five-Year Review 08/06 2007 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2007 2007 Annual Report 2008 2008 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2008 2008 Annual Report 2009 2009 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2009 2009 Annual Report 2010 2010 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2010 2010 Annual Report 2011 2011 Quarterly Monitoring Reports 2011 2011 Annual Report 2012 Fourth Five-Year Review 09111 Explanation ofSignificant Differences 05112 -20-

# #'--- Walter E. Mugdan, Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division

-21-

### HYDE PARK LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CLOSE-OUT REPORT

FIGURES
Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Site Map Figure 3 — Source Control Well Locations Figure 4 — Overburden Barrier Containment System Figure 5 — Bedrock Purge Well Locations Figure 6 — Bloody Run Monitoring Well Locations Figure 7 — APL Flux Well Locations Figure 8 — Community Monitoring Well Locations Figure 9 — APL & NAPL Zones Figure 10 — Overburden Potentiometric Surface Map Figure 11 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-01 Figure 12 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-02 Figure 13 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-04 Figure 14 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-05 Figure 15 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-06 Figure 16 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-07 Figure 17 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-09 Figure 18 — Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Map FZ-11 Figure 19 — Niagara Gorge Seep & Culvert Locations

### FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15 FIGURE 16 FIGURE 17 FIGURE 18 FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20

### SITE

figure 1 SITE LOCATION HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.
01069-D23101(PRES008)GN-WA002 JUL 18/2012 0 2000ft 1000

USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK - ONTARIO, 1980 SOURCE: LEWISTON, NEW YORK, 19800 150 300ft 0

LEGEND SITE BOUNDARY 

### figure 2 SITE LOCATION HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.
01069-D23101(PRES008)GN-WA001 JUL 18/2012**~~ T**  \ /f 

## \ \ lr \' ""1-, \ \ I; SHERMAN AVENUe LEGEND**~. '-** **~** SWALE**Gi~EJF'** BROS \ \ !! 

# r \ '* 

# l' \ \ I' /'
"

. '" 

## \ \, /

# I~" ,

# ~~ --·····-········-A-'75iJJE,l\.. , -+-'

# ~ '''''' """_, "" 

### '''',''EY 

# _=.' '
..'" ,

# ~.**.** '"
..
fjcKk, \

# \---i<~,**~F ',~** **-'T~-, ''''** **'~ -;-''''+-,**  ,_____

# ,,-:'~**",;;,,~: ",-c'A""~"f'**  ' • " A- '___ 

### x..., ""'N v, N ,



# ' f \\/-

.. .... - -s'''RilJiV -,

# .''''~''::o-''''c--.7..

# ~=-.-.... 

# ' ",

r<::7I I \ % -----5;, ACCE .<J

_ "'"

# ~__

# ~"_" k0.i

# F i

, 

# L--=_ N""-___ 'I" .,,' _.. .. "

# '~.. *'- , ---.-..... - -', \ X

... " 

# --'" =, \ ,

# ~': 'ri"". , b..()i \\
...

# ~.' .-' 

# i!bJ '--, i X POWER TOWER



# 1 RAILWAY
• SC-2 SOURCE CONTROL WELL 150 o • oEW-2 LANDFILL MONITORING WELL 300ft



### "', , " \ , , U ,

. t;:j-f'T- \ \ 

# \-'C=O' oEW-2

. 

### ® ". '1'", I , \ 

# ' V L"

# SC~ • 

# "" * \\ '( HYDE P,iRK

# ~./ I \ \ \r:=r-"

.

# ~""'I' I. OEW-1. SC-1 , At-.JDFiLL 

# "" , , 

## , .' 

# .**~~** I \ \ 

### '! "'

# W~**~**

# ~! r , \\' 1c\-*1 0W35"" OEW-3 OEW4

# OEW~. OE \ 

## I it-!- i.' , \ " 

## C=;:]" Sc.3t t SC4

# tsc~ , G/'f II 

### I 

### .(,.......'1' 

# if.l/ \\ \ t' OEW
.7. SC·'

# ,_.AC~..-.c I CL* \ 

# D I X

# '~**!! \**  • OW3""' -,* '" I /

. \

# ~*" , .. , {,e,;.. I \ ' , ,

"', J '# ,. ""_".' j-j--------!

# ~,**~** , , , 'ob" , ", c,

! I )( \ \

# ~**~ ,** **.,.~_** X X ., ,

# ~ __ 

# t / " *

# "",.,**,,!, ~**  ''''''...,. 

# r' , ! "--..

### '"

,

# '"" "'- 

# T 

# t 1 I


## !

. ------ . .-_.- \ ,\" -.--,

# --'~.:.~ . - -- " 1" 

# ---·· ..···-·..**·----===~?t--=,-r.** 

# \.\ 

# r ,i 

# =s**~**

# __ . A/:" "--" I I \ \ 

# f1

# 1~ f'

.. "

.. ,. . 

# i -'C",

# ~~:?::..,j \. I'I

. \\ U

# [j'i~ L

# T"MCER,**~:;:. rJ~.-r-I.ffl**  '. FIGURE 3 ! / r \ I, \ " <T"1 

# 'r'" [? Ii ./.--' \' I \ \ L-.....l

_ _ ., , ' " 

# * /

# /~/ I' \\

# ~ II 

# i LOCATIONS / I I 

# I \ I OL SYSTEM

# WE~NDFILL SITE

# ~ \ ! I"

# L.-,~'t [ SOURCE CONTR HYDE

# PAR~OLDINGS, INC* \ ! '\ \ 

# 1 GLENN

# SPR~~a;!IliFalls, New Yon \ l \ I '-

NOTE : S ITE BE NC HMARK IS A P.K. NAIL SET IN THE EAST FACE OF A POWER PO LE LOCATED AT THE WE ST END OFTHE EXISTIN G HYDE PARK LAN DFILL, ELEVATIO N" 6 12. 77. DATUM NOT VERIFI ED

. I 

# *' I

01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN
-WA001 FEB 3/2012

# 4

100 SHERMANA VENUE
OMW-B.

OMW-5 

## •

MH25 LEGEND

- - -- - - LIMITS OF LANDFILL OLD COLLECTION TILE GREiF BROS OVERBURDEN BARRIER COLLECTION SYSTIEM
• MH5 • MH23 COLLECTION TILE MANHOLE
• WW "A"

. WW "C"COLLECTION TILE WET WELL

- ------...---- SWALE M H24 FENCE RAILWAY**~** ____ OMW-3

### ~**~ ~~MH23**  .OMW-4 OVERBURDEN MONITORING WELL [8J J .,( \ \**~** --- _.. /' IIC,,/ -____... __________ _____ ......... TOWN OF LEWISTON

MH16 MH15 

### t &;3 TOWN OF N!AGARA MH12

____**~** MH 11

MH10 

### ® MH20 HYDE PARK LANDFILL

" MHl**~H2** • MH3 \. MH4 , \ 

### P \**OMW~**12R 

### *

. ....., --**~** 

### ;:::- MH31 MH32 'MH5 MH6 ( rx:+ 1 1\', \ Ii· OMW-11R**_OM~ -1~R** **~ ~**  

# \\**/-----~** \ ,/// .-I-I \ // /// \ \

/' \ \ ( \ \ I 

# i / @ / I

01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN·WA002 FEB 312012**("'~~ .'**  .MH35

OVERBURDE N BARRIER COLLECTI ON SYSTEM


### t 

### FIGURE 4 OVERBURDEN AND EXISTING BARRIER COLLECTION SYSTEMS HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. Niagara Falls, New Yo,*"

# ~**~**

o 300 600ft I-U I

LE GEND F2U BEDROCK FLOW ZONE til PIEZOMETER LOCATION

2.4,5 FLOW ZONES INSTRUME NTED @APW-2 PURGE WELL 

# )

FIGURE 5/

# ~ ",



### '"

NOTES : 1

.) SITE BENCHMARK IS A P.K

. NAIL SET IN THE EAST FACE OF A POWER POLE LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF THE EXISTING HYDE PARK LANDFILL, ELEVATION = 612.77. DATUM NOT VERIFIED

. 01069-D23101(SOSAD003)GN
-WA004 FEB 3 / 2012 " • BR-4

BR-3 •

BR-2 • • BR-1**~**

,.

"



# - o 100 300ft

• BR-2 LEG END SWALE POWER TOWER RA ILWAY BLOODY RUN MONITOR ING WE LL



### FIGURE 6 BLOODY RUN MONITORING WELL LOCATION HYDE PARK LAN DFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS , INC. Niagara Fal/s, New YorkI 

### o 300 600ft 

### I I / /

/ / /

I / /

# ~ 01069-023101 (SOSA0003)GN-WA005 FEB 3/2012 

### '" / I

LEGEND SWALE • APW-1 APL PLUME PURGE WELL POWER TOWER • AFW-3U APL PLUME FLUX WELL RAILWAY @



### FIGURE 7 APL FLUX WELL LOCATIONS APL PLUME CONTAINMENT SYSTEM HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

### Niagara Falls, New York**v~'~ 0~**  "" \J


### .., 

# I

CMW-90B

I**~-:.;** 

# /

, I

,J

# ~**/~ I~**  ! ->! 

## ler / p"

<'**~**

## ~.~ I <' ':' /1 

## ,/1IrII

01069-023101 (SOSAD003)GN-WA006 FEB 3/2012 I!'I**~-~-~**

- --- 

### -

.....**---~-**

,,--**'..:.'-~-** 

### ----


### \'

- CMW -70B

.. CMW-7SH \ 

# l

1

- "-- .--- CMW-8SH 

### ----.-.r- . __

### "N,-'YL\N'Jl~ __

### ~ =---===:-**~.".,** °0B
,-___ DF i ,",'**'\~** :.,. LE 

### // 

# /

/ o 300 600ft

LEGEND SWALE**~** POWER TOWER

eCMW-20B o CoB, RA ILWAY COMMUN ITY MON ITORING WELL OPEN MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN OB OVERBURDEN SH SVP SHALLOW BEDROCK SOIL VAPOR PROBE



### FIGlJRE8 ' COMrV1l.JNITY MONITORING LOCATIONS HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

### Niagara Falls, New Yorke F2U 245 600ft I

" ,.,,! A.FW-1M I**AFW.R 7Q**  n AF'N·IU 

### •

I

BEDROCK FLOW ZONE 0IEZOMETER L OCATION FLOW ZONES iNSTRU MENTED ® APW2 PURGE "VELL PIEZOME lE R WITK NO M 'L CONCENTRATIONS ADOVE HYDE PARK SCREENING LEVELS SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF NA Pl I N BEDROC K FROM ALL FLOW ZONES BASED ON 2003 CHARACTERIZATIO N SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMA lE EXTENT OF ilPL CDNC ENT RA TIO NS ABOVE HYDE PARK SCREENING LEVELS IN BEDROCK FROM .ALL FLOW ZONES NOTES I FIGURE IN CLUDES All FLOW lO"'ES 2 MOST RECEN T DATA FOR EACH PIEZO M ETER

USED FO R FiGURE 3 APt· AQUEOUS PH,.\SF lIQU,D 4 NAP l - NON AQUEOUS PHASf:. UQUID I • ASP-' " 

# . / )

AGVJ · 1U \( AGW I l

SC 11 ACAV·IM

1
.9



# f4U¥,"- 2 4 5**1** .• F.;M 

# .7.

\\ 

# \ j 

### ,



## H2U }7 " 2M 56. H2<



### FIGURE 9 HYDE PARK LANDFILL NAPL AND APL ZONE BO UNDARIES HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS , INC . NiagaflJ Falls, New Yo'*Niagara River



# :l 

# l

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

# =n I '" (3 

### '" "1 ([ q! /!' $ u !{ f1 J !>' 

### o**~** 

# iOO IL

# .-.~**..** 

# !

L**~**



### ........ Potentiometric Conlour (ftAMSL)



### ........ Existing Barri er Col lection System



### ........ Overburden Barrier 1$ It)

DEUI<I.o\RI: 

### B c:J 

### DD**~** 

## 9j .¥ 

# i 

# Q UD 

# /III' '1Ilr-lr-l\ LEW'ISTQN )
NIAGARA Collection System Well used • in contouring Well considered 0 unreliable· data nol used in contouring OBCWS Wet Wells 

### • pumped for recovery. Posted levels ind icate th e pumping setpoints. Selpoint levels were used for contou rin g. Indicates the well is .0:525 dry: the posted value is the bottom of the well screened interval. Note: Data values may overtap. If illegible, refer to tabulated data in the report.

# ~ Oft. 200ft. 400ft. 600ft.

<)
Overburden Potentiometric Surface December2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings , Inc.

// Niagara Falls, New YorkFZ-01**~** aXy Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc

.

.

# """'" 

# ---



# ---

o**~** Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Umts Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable· data not used in contouring Purge Well - data not used in contouring Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours "";thin the dewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 11 ' Potentiometric Surface December 2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York**~**

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. ,..."..... ,..."..... till"'" 

# *' • o Legend Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Limits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable - data n01 used in contouring Purge Well - data not used in contou ri ng Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours within the dewatered area are approximately the elevation ofthe flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 12 FZ-02 Potentiometric Surface December2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York**~**

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. o

-525 1.ilglmd Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Li mits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unrel iable - data not used in contouring Purge Wel l · data not used in contouring Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours within the dewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 13 FZ-04 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York**~**

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. .....-.f- •**.r..-.--~** 7

__**.~**..r**Jto ~**  

## -'--9--1 

## l .J
__

## J**~** Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Limits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable - data not used in contouring Purge Well - data not used in contouring Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or pu rge well. Contours within the dewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.



### FIGURE 14 FZ-05 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York**~**

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc

. 

# ....-**~** Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Limits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable - data not used in contouring Pu rge Well - data not used in contouring Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours within the dewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 15 FZ-06 Potentiometric Surface Decembe(20 11 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York

### /

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

### .......

o o**~** Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Limits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewalered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable - data not used in contouring Purge Well - data not used in contouring Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours within the dewalered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 16 FZ-07 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York**~**

'- • TIJVN OF NM[JIltRA**J5~'()9**

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc

. 

# ...-

o

-525 1&wmd Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Limits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable - data not used in contouring Purge Well - data not used in contouri ng Tilde indicates the flow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well. Contours with in the dewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 17

..**~**......

### - . FZ-09 Potentiometric Surface December 2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Niagara Falls, New York

### /



# ""'" DXY Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 

# ""'" 

# -- 

# -- 01

v WJlD.lI Potentiometric Contour (ftAMSL) 2003 Delineation of NAPL Umits Flow Zone Subcrop Dewatered area of flow zone 'L, \ 

## '\,_._ "_

....tl·T··'



# l**r=,~--J** 

### v'" 'J( Piezometer used in contouring Piezometer considered unreliable· data not used in contouring

on.. . o('
..." 't
..... _ \**~11** ..._____.."

. .....J ( '--- ")

"-) o Purge Well - data not used in contouring

FZ-11**.~** 525 Tilde indicates the ftow zone elevation in a dewatered piezometer or purge well

. Contours """;thin the d ewatered area are approximately the elevation of the flow zone.

# ~

FIGURE 18 Potentiometric Surface December2011 4th Quarter Report Hyde Park Landfill Site Glenn Springs Holdings , Inc. Niagara Falls, New YorkLEGEND o SEEP-02 SEEP LOCATION

CULVERT 8 () CULVERT LOCATION

# ~ SOURCE: 2006 AERIAL IMAGE FOR NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK; STATE PLANE NEW YORK WEST, NAD83. IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) AS PART OF THE NORTH AMERICAN IMAGE PROGRAM (NAIP).

01069-023101 (SOSAD003)GN-WA008 MAR 29/2012 

### ' FIGURE 19 SEEP LOCATIONS - OVERVIEW HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC. 

### Niagara Falls, New York